Bleeding Heartland is a community blog about Iowa politics: campaigns and elections, state government, social and environmental issues. Bleeding Heartland also weighs in on presidential policies and campaigns, federal legislation and what the Iowans in Congress are up to. Join our community, post your thoughts as comments or diaries, help keep our leaders honest and hold them accountable.

Wed May 19, 2010 at 15:24:26 PM CDT

Iowa Republicans are deluding themselves if they think Representative Leonard Boswell is highly vulnerable this year. The more I see of the Republican primary campaigns, the less worried I am about holding Iowa's third Congressional district in the Democratic column.

Four of the seven Republicans running against Boswell have no chance of winning the nomination. Jason Welch hasn't attended any candidate forums, and I wonder why he went to the trouble of qualifying for the ballot. Pat Bertroche and Scott Batcher are ill-informed sideshows who will be lucky to win 5 percent of the vote. Mark Rees seems to have the firmest grasp of the issues, but there aren't enough moderate Republicans anymore for someone like Rees to win a primary. Rees could affect the election, because a strong showing for him (10 to 20 percent of the vote) would increase the chance that no candidate receives at least 35 percent in the primary. But whether Republicans pick a winner on June 8 or at a district convention later, Rees will not be Boswell's general election opponent.

That leaves the Washington establishment candidate Jim Gibbons, State Senator Brad Zaun and tea party favorite Dave Funk. After watching yesterday's forum featuring six of Boswell's opponents, Graham Gillette argued that Funk, Gibbons and Zaun "are all capable of putting together a strong general election effort." After the jump I explain why I disagree.

Whenever I read about a Gibbons public appearance, I get the impression he has no idea what he's talking about. I already knew he was ignorant about fiscal and economic policy. At yesterday's candidate forum, the Republicans were asked whether there was any provision in the new federal health care reform that they would keep. Today's Des Moines Register published Gibbons' response:

We need to really take a look at untangling insurance from employment. What that would look like is you would have a plan that stays with you the rest of your life... We were moving in that direction, but the government steps and basically becomes the 800-pound gorilla in the room and now we all have to adjust to that."

Understating things a bit, Kathie Obradovich found Gibbons' comment "hard to fathom." Gibbons knows nothing about our current health insurance system if he thinks we were trending away from employer-provided insurance. If you want people to be able to keep one insurance policy for their whole lives, that would require more government regulation than the new law contains, not less. Opening up Medicare for any American who wants to buy into the program would be the simplest way to achieve Gibbons' stated goal; other alternatives would require new rules for employers and/or insurers.

Boswell isn't the biggest policy wonk in the Iowa delegation, but he will look like a genius next to Gibbons.

Gibbons has raised an impressive amount of money in the past six months and will run more radio and television ads than any other candidate before June 8, but it takes more than money to win an election. Gibbons might not even win the primary. Many people in the Des Moines area expect the nominee to be Zaun.

Zaun is the most experienced campaigner in the Republican field, and he has support from part of the Iowa Republican establishment, but he doesn't have a firm grasp of the issues. For instance, he wasn't aware that the health insurance reform law prohibits denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, beginning in 2014. Asked if there were any provisions in that law he would keep, Zaun answered, "There's nothing in the health care bill that I like. I don't like the government taking over my health care decisions." Boswell will be able to point to many benefits for central Iowans in the current law; money for hospitals, subsidies for small businesses, allowing adult children to remain on their parents' health insurance until age 26, and so on.

Funk's central campaign themes seem way outside the mainstream. If he wins the nomination (which could happen if it goes to a district convention), he will talk about abolishing the Department of Education, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, while Boswell can describe dozens of good programs those agencies support in Iowa. According to Funk, federal agencies not mentioned in the constitution have no authority to exist, but if we extend that logic, we would need to abolish the FBI, NASA and many more agencies. (Funk counters that the FBI relates to national defense, but the FBI is a law enforcement agency, and one could argue that the framers of the constitution deliberately left law enforcement to local governments.)

Boswell will begin the general election campaign with a big financial advantage no matter who wins the GOP nomination, but Zaun and Funk would be particularly hard-pressed for money. A Gibbons loss in the primary would humiliate many Iowa major donors and the National Republican Congressional Committee. Perhaps the Gibbons supporters would pony up large contributions to Zaun or Funk, but I doubt it. I wouldn't expect help from the NRCC either.

If the NRCC does invest in the race against Boswell, I don't think their blah blah blah Nancy Pelosi blah blah blah liberal message will resonate. Yesterday Democrat Mark Critz beat Republican Tim Burns by 53 percent to 45 percent in Pennsylvania's 12th district. John McCain won that district by 8 points, and President Obama's approval has been measured at 33 percent there. The NRCC ran a typical Republican campaign against "Obamacare" and Nancy Pelosi, but they fell short--way short--in a district that should be much more favorable to them than IA-03. (Obama's approval is close to 50 percent here, and our unemployment rate is much lower than in Pennsylvania.) In the closing days of the PA-012 race, President Bill Clinton campaigned for Critz and mocked the Republican message: "Maybe [Burns] should move to California, if he wants to run against Nancy Pelosi." I wouldn't be surprised to see President Clinton in Iowa later this year if Boswell needs his help. Boswell endorsed Hillary Clinton before the 2008 caucuses and vowed to stick with her as a superdelegate when she was still battling Obama for the Democratic nomination.

Your thoughts on the race in Iowa's third district are welcome in this thread.

If you think earmarks are popular this election you are sorely missing the message. In addition, while Boswell may point to benefits of the health care plan, there are so many negatives to point at (as polls still show) that health care is a no win for the democrats this November.

If you want to get to details, don't forget Boswell didn't even realize HIPiowa existed in his post health care press release....that will come back to haunt him.

Zaun wins this primary, and the general election. Remember...Zaun has been outspent in EVERY competitive election...and still wins every single time. Why?....it really isn't about just money, and Zaun always has plenty to meet his plan.

Which isn't surprising, since you are a conservative Republican and I am a liberal Democrat. This is still a Democratic-leaning district, and Obama is not that unpopular here. Zaun is not going to beat Boswell while getting outspent 10-1, which is what will happen if he's the nominee. I don't think out-of-state Republicans will chip in for Zaun if he makes Gibbons (and by extension the NRCC) look bad.

Polls that show health care reform is unpopular always include a group of people like me, who don't like the bill because it didn't go far enough. But people like me are never going to vote for someone like Zaun. They will either vote for the Democrat or stay home.

A majority of Americans either support the health care reform or think it didn't go far enough. Zaun will look silly saying there's nothing good in the bill.

Boswell knew HIPIowa existed, but the new high-risk pool will cover more people than HIPIowa at lower cost to participants.

out of hundreds that Boswell will be able to campaign on. This is nothing special--Boswell's office sends out several press releases like this every week:

May 26, 2010
Boswell Announces $2.9 million for Poweshiek Water Association
Washington, DC - Congressman Leonard Boswell announced that the Department of Agriculture has extended a $2.9 million loan to the Poweshiek Water Association for water system improvements, which will be funded by last year's Recovery Act.
"This loan is important to protecting the public health of rural communities in Iowa by improving local water quality and public sanitation services," Boswell said. "Additionally, these dollars will fund 51 jobs in the state. The Recovery Act has continued to generate jobs and invest in communities large and small in Iowa."
The Poweshiek Water Association serves more than 6,200 customers in 11 counties including Benton, Iowa, Jasper, Keokuk, Mahaska, Poweshiek, and Tama.

Think about how many projects and programs in IA-03 have received money thanks to the stimulus bill Boswell voted for last year. Republicans have nothing to offer voters but their stale talking points about "overspending."

Do you not believe that this is the UNITED States and the federal government can use mine and your tax dollars to benefit the people of Louisiana when they are struggling? I applaud Jeff Flake for letting people vote on these earmarks and bringing transparency to this process by the way. The concept of other taxpayers in different states saying fuck you, my money should only benefit me is deplorable and should not be allowed in the UNITED states. It may just be a philosophical difference however and I can respect that. I can't believe we're still arguing over this state's rights crap though when most decisions are still left up to the states.

Zaun will be extremely competitive in this race, I agree with mirage that it will be a close general election if he wins the primary.

I personally am rooting for Gibbons at this point because I think he is truly lacking on the issues and would probably cave to the demands of constituents instead of just saying NO to all federal spending.

If Funk wants to abolish NASA and get on board with cutting salaries of the top bureaucrats at the DOE I think most of us can get on board with those proposals.

I'm just saying that if we go down the road of abolishing everything that's not specifically mentioned in the constitution, we have to get rid of a lot more than the Department of Education, Energy and the EPA. Anyway, if he thinks the FBI is ok because it's part of "national defense," you can certainly defend Energy, EPA etc as related to the "general welfare."

If it's a big Republican wave year, Boswell could lose to Zaun, but I still think he is strongly favored to win.

There are a lot of misconceptions about earmarks. The truth is that they account for less than 1 percent of the federal budget, and even if you eliminated them, you wouldn't save money, because they only "earmark" portions of a pot Congress has appropriated. Eliminating the earmarks simply would leave the executive branch more discretion on how to spend the same pot of money.

Also, remember that no one in the Republican primary is spending any resources digging into Zaun's voting record as a State Senator, either. You can't look at him in a vacuum - he has a record in the State Senate that is incredibly conservative by all standards and he would be accountable for those votes in a race vs. Boswell.

I do personally think Zaun is a nice guy, and a solid campaigner, but I don't think he'll be a strong general election candidate vs. Cong. Boswell. There is a real difference between being a strong candidate in metro/suburban Des Moines and in rural parts of the 3rd District. Leonard IS rural Iowa.

It was interesting to see Inhofe and DeMint going at it LOL. This is the main reason why Grassley had to take a dive to the right because the people who want to spend no money at all on the federal or state levels already had him on the earmarks question, damn him for making that airport runway safe. We would have gotten his help on other issues if he wasn't so worried about Bill Salier or Ed Failor.

Oh and in case anyone from Arkansas for example is reading this I'm "sorry" we spent your money on Iowa's runways. We will be real goons and probably return the "favor."